The US House of Representatives has
passed a bill allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11,
days before the attack’s 15th anniversary. The measure passed
without objection or opposition, but the White House is
threatening a veto.

House Resolution 3815, also known as
the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA,
creates an exception to sovereign immunity created by a 1976 law,
thus allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries for terrorism
that kills Americans on US soil. The law has been invoked to
shield Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks.

Fifteen out of 19 men who hijacked
commercial airliners and used them as missiles to target the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon were subjects of the Saudi kingdom.

[...]

Saudi Arabia has tried to block the
bill, using the services of its many lobbyists in Washington.
Among them is the Podesta Group, co-founded by current Hillary
Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and run by his brother Tony.

Recall that, in March, a US judge ordered Iran to pay over
$10 billion in damages to families of victims who died on September
11, 2001 – even though there is no evidence of Tehran's direct
connection to the attack! The same judge earlier cleared Saudi Arabia
from culpability. The ruling is noteworthy particularly since none of
the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Iranian citizens!

However,
this time we have a bill passed by the US House of Representatives,
which has much more weight, but the truth is that, even in the case
of Saudi Arabia, there are no clear indications of direct involvement
of the country in the 9/11 attacks.

We know
that, various US governments in the past proceeded even in
manufactured evidence, to justify military invasions in third
countries. As Adam Curtis describes in the third part of his
documentary The Power of Nightmares,
even al-Qaeda was actually invented, to justify the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. From Wikipedia
: “... in order to prosecute bin Laden in absentia for the 1998
U.S. embassy bombings, U.S. prosecutors had to prove that he is the
head of a criminal organisation responsible for the bombings. They
find a former associate of bin Laden, Jamal al-Fadl, and pay him to
testify that bin Laden is the head of a massive terrorist
organisation called "al-Qaeda". With the September 11
attacks, neoconservatives in the new Republican administration of
George W. Bush use this invented concept of an organisation to
justify another crusade against a new enemy, culminating in the
launch of the War on Terror. After the American invasion of
Afghanistan fails to uproot the alleged terrorist organisation, the
Bush administration focuses inwards, searching unsuccessfully for
terrorist sleeper cells in America. In 2003, they extend the War on
Terror to a war on general perceived evils with the invasion of
Iraq.”

So, does
this bill by the US House of Representatives marks the beginning of
the end of the United States/Saudi Arabia alliance? It's quite early
to say, but rather not.

It appears
that this bill is included in a series of actions through which the
US attempt to "cut any ties" with suspected connection to
any factor (e.g. CIA training camps) linked with ISIS or other
terrorist groups, especially after the expansion of chaos in the
Middle East, as well as, the multiple terrorist attacks in Western
soil.

Such a
factor is also Saudi Arabia, one of the most solid US allies that has
been completely exposed for the various aid that offered to ISIS
jihadists. Therefore, this bill could be considered a smoke screen to
calm down the reactions from the fact that the US continue to
cooperate closely in various levels with one of the most brutal
regimes in the Middle East that arms and helps terrorists.

Another
indication towards this theory, is that the United States finally
took a clear position against Al-Nusra, in the context of the recent
agreement with Russia. As John Kerry stated:
“going on Al-Nusra is not a concession to anybody” but “is
profoundly in the interests of the US.”

In any case,
it is rather doubtful that Obama will act for this matter too. Apart
from the Middle East chaos, he will leave this new "hot potato"
to the hands of the next US presidency. In case that Hillary Clinton
get elected, she will have to deal with another "headache".
The Saudis have plenty of money to pay for compensations, so this is
not the big issue. They will be expecting from their friend Hillary
to reject the bill, in order to send them a signal that the new US
government still considers Saudi Arabia an ally. We will have to wait
and see if all these come true, or, if something much bigger is
taking place that would change dramatically the balance and the
geopolitical game in the Middle East.